The Indian Constitution establishes a parliamentary form of government at both the national and state levels. Articles 74 and 75 deal with the parliamentary system at the Centre, while Articles 163 and 164 deal with the same at state level.

What is the Parliamentary System?

• The parliamentary system of government holds the executive accountable to the legislature for its policies and actions.
• Parliamentary government, also known as cabinet government, responsible government, or the Westminster model of government, is popular in the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and India.

Why India Adopted Parliamentary System?

Familiarity With The System

• The parliamentary system had been in use in India during British rule, so the Constitution-makers were somewhat familiar with it.
• According to K.M. Munshi, "some kind of responsibility has been introduced in the governance of this country for the last thirty or forty years."
• Our constitutional traditions have evolved into Parliamentary ones.

Preference for Greater Responsibility

• In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated that "a democratic executive must satisfy two conditions: stability and responsibility."
• Unfortunately, no system has yet been devised that can ensure both in equal measure.
• The American system provides greater stability but less responsibility. In contrast, the British system provides more responsibility but less stability.
• The Draft Constitution, in recommending a parliamentary system of Executive, prefers greater responsibility over greater stability.'

Avoiding Legislative–Executive Conflicts

• The framers of the Constitution wished to avoid conflicts between the legislature and the executive, which are unavoidable in the United States' presidential system.
• They believed that an infant democracy could not afford to risk a perpetual feud, conflict, or threat of conflict between these two branches of government.
• They desired a form of government that would promote the country's multifaceted development.

Characteristics of Indian Society

• India is one of the world's most diverse countries and most complex plural societies.
• As a result, the makers of the constitution chose the parliamentary system because it allows for greater representation of various sections, interests, and regions in government.
• This instils a sense of patriotism in the people and helps to build a united India.

Merits Of Parliamentary System

1. Coordination Between The Legislature And The Executive

• The parliamentary system has the greatest advantage of ensuring a harmonious relationship and cooperation between the legislative and executive branches of government.
• The executive is a branch of the legislature, and the two are mutually dependent at work.
• As a result, there is less opportunity for disagreements and conflicts between the two organs.

2. Responsible Government

• The parliamentary system, by its very nature, establishes responsible government.
• Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all acts of omission and commission.
• The Parliament exerts control over ministers through various mechanisms such as question hour, discussions, adjournment motions, no-confidence motions, and so on.

3. Prevents Despotism

• The executive authority is delegated to a group of people (council of ministers) rather than a single person under this system.
• This decentralization of authority checks the executive's dictatorial tendencies.
• Furthermore, the executive is accountable to Parliament and can be removed through a no-confidence motion.

4. Alternative Government

• If the ruling party loses its majority, the Head of State has the authority to invite the opposition party to form a government.
• This means that a new government can be formed without holding new elections.

5. Wide Representation

• The executive in a parliamentary system is made up of a group of people (i.e., ministers who are representatives of the people).
• As a result, it is possible to provide representation in the government to all sections and regions.
• This factor can be considered by the prime minister when appointing ministers.

Demerits Of Parliamentary System

1. Unstable Government

• The parliamentary system does not guarantee stable government.
• There is no guarantee that a government will last its term.
• Ministers rely on the good graces of the majority legislators to ensure their continuation and survival in office.
• A no-confidence motion, a political defection, or the ills of a multiparty coalition can all destabilise the government.
• Examples include the governments of Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, V.P. Singh, Chandra Sekhar, Deva Gowda, and I.K. Gujral.

2. No Policy Continuity

• The parliamentary system is not conducive to long-term policy formulation and implementation. This is because the government's tenure is uncertain.
• A change in the ruling party is usually followed by a change in the government's policies.
• For example, in 1977, the Janata Government led by Morarji Desai reversed a large number of policies implemented by the previous Congress Government.
• The Congress government did the same thing after regaining power in 1980.

3. Cabinet Dictatorship

• When the ruling party has an absolute majority in Parliament, the cabinet becomes autocratic and has almost unlimited powers.
• This phenomenon was observed during the reigns of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi.

4. Opposed To Separation Of Powers

• The legislature and the executive are inseparable in the parliamentary system.
• The cabinet serves as both the legislative and executive leaders.
• As a result, the entire system of government violates both the letter and spirit of the theory of separation of powers. In fact, there is a power fusion.

5. Amateur Government

• As the ministers are not experts in their fields, the parliamentary system is not conducive to administrative efficiency.
• The Prime Minister has a limited selection of ministers; his options are limited to members of Parliament and do not include external talent.
• Furthermore, ministers spend the majority of their time on parliamentary work, cabinet meetings, and party activities.

Conclusion

Since the 1970s, the question of whether the parliamentary system should be maintained or replaced by the presidential system has been a source of discussion and debate in our country. The Swaran Singh Committee, appointed by the Congress government in 1975, looked into this issue in depth. The committee concluded that because the parliamentary system has been performing well, there is no need to replace it with the presidential system.

FAQs

Q1: What is a parliamentary system of government?

Q2: What are the main demerits of the parliamentary system?

Q3: How does coalition politics affect the parliamentary system?

Q4: Why is executive dominance considered a demerit in the parliamentary system?

Q5: Does the parliamentary system hinder efficient decision-making?

MCQs

1. Which of the following is a major demerit of the parliamentary system?

a) Lack of accountability

b) Unstable governments due to coalition politics

c) Absolute executive control

d) Lack of elections

2. How does the parliamentary system lead to executive dominance?

a) The executive is directly elected by the people

b) The judiciary controls the executive

c) The executive derives legitimacy from the legislature and may dominate it

d) The executive is completely independent of the legislature

3. Which feature of the parliamentary system often leads to delays in decision-making?

a) Presidential authority

b) Coalition politics

c) Fixed tenures

d) Centralized decision-making

4. Why are frequent elections considered a demerit in the parliamentary system?

a) They increase the strength of the judiciary

b) They enhance public participation

c) They lead to political instability and policy uncertainty

d) They reduce government accountability

5. What is a potential drawback of legislative-executive harmony in the parliamentary system?

a) It leads to strong opposition

b) It undermines checks and balances

c) It increases judicial intervention

d) It reduces public accountability

GS Mains Questions and Model Answers

Q1. Discuss the demerits of the parliamentary system with a focus on coalition politics and executive dominance. 

Answer: The parliamentary system, while offering democratic representation, has several demerits, particularly in the context of coalition politics and executive dominance. Coalition politics arises when no single party secures a majority in the legislature, necessitating alliances between parties to form a government. This often results in unstable governments, as coalition partners may have conflicting interests, leading to policy compromises and, at times, early dissolution of the government. Such instability can impede long-term policy planning and governance. Additionally, the parliamentary system can lead to executive dominance, especially when the ruling party or coalition controls a majority in the legislature. This concentration of power allows the executive to pass laws and policies with minimal scrutiny, weakening the role of the legislature as a check on the executive's authority. The blurred separation of powers between the executive and legislature reduces accountability and undermines the principle of checks and balances. While the parliamentary system provides flexibility and responsiveness, these demerits highlight the challenges it faces in ensuring stable and accountable governance.

Q2. Analyze how the frequent dissolution of government affects policy continuity in the parliamentary system. 

Answer: The frequent dissolution of governments in the parliamentary system, often due to coalition instability, has a significant impact on policy continuity. In coalition governments, differing political ideologies and priorities among coalition partners can lead to disagreements, causing early elections or government collapse. When governments are dissolved prematurely, ongoing policies and reforms may be halted or reversed, as new governments tend to introduce their own agendas. This constant shift in policy direction disrupts long-term planning and implementation, particularly in areas such as economic development, infrastructure, and social welfare. Policy inconsistency can deter investment, both domestic and foreign, as businesses and investors prefer stable and predictable governance. Additionally, frequent changes in government may undermine public trust in the political system, as voters witness the inability of elected representatives to provide sustained governance. Furthermore, the frequent dissolution of governments diverts attention from governance to electioneering, leading to short-term populist measures rather than well-thought-out policy decisions. This lack of policy continuity hampers progress and weakens the overall effectiveness of governance in a parliamentary system.

Q3. Evaluate the impact of executive dominance on legislative accountability in the parliamentary system. 

Answer: Executive dominance in the parliamentary system can significantly impact legislative accountability, leading to a weakened system of checks and balances. In this system, the executive (comprising the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers) is drawn from the legislature, and its survival depends on maintaining the confidence of the majority in the lower house. When the ruling party or coalition holds a strong majority, it becomes easier for the executive to push through legislation with minimal opposition or debate. This reduces the legislature’s role as a body meant to scrutinize, debate, and hold the executive accountable. The dominance of the executive over the legislative process may lead to hasty decision-making, the passing of laws without adequate consultation, and a reduction in the effectiveness of parliamentary committees that are tasked with overseeing government actions. Additionally, the practice of party whips, which compel members of the ruling party to vote along party lines, further erodes the independence of legislators, reducing their ability to challenge or critique executive decisions. In such a scenario, the principle of accountability is compromised, as the legislature becomes a rubber stamp for executive policies rather than a robust institution for democratic oversight.

Previous Year Questions on Merits and Demerits of Parliamentary Form of Government

1. UPSC CSE 2019

Question: Discuss the limitations of the parliamentary system in ensuring political stability and efficient governance in India. 

Answer: The parliamentary system in India, while providing democratic representation, faces significant challenges in ensuring political stability and efficient governance. One of the primary limitations is the instability caused by coalition politics. In the absence of a clear majority, political parties must form alliances, which can be fragile and prone to collapse due to ideological differences or conflicting interests. This often leads to frequent elections, changes in government, and policy inconsistency, undermining long-term planning and governance. Another limitation is the potential for executive dominance, especially when the ruling party holds a large majority in the legislature. In such cases, the executive can push through legislation with minimal scrutiny, reducing the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight. Additionally, the blurred separation of powers between the executive and legislature can compromise accountability, as the legislature becomes an extension of the executive rather than an independent body. The need for consensus and political compromise in coalition governments also slows down decision-making, reducing the efficiency of governance. These limitations highlight the challenges of the parliamentary system in balancing representation with stability and governance efficiency.

2. UPSC CSE 2018

Question:  Evaluate the effectiveness of the parliamentary system in upholding the principle of checks and balances in India. 

Answer: The parliamentary system in India, while democratic and representative, faces challenges in upholding the principle of checks and balances, particularly due to the overlapping roles of the executive and legislature. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, and its functioning is dependent on the confidence of the majority in the lower house. While this ensures that the executive is accountable to the legislature, it can also lead to executive dominance when the ruling party or coalition has a strong majority. In such situations, the executive can pass legislation with minimal opposition, reducing the legislature’s ability to scrutinize and hold the government accountable. The use of party whips further limits individual legislators’ ability to challenge the executive, as they are bound to vote along party lines. While parliamentary committees provide a mechanism for detailed oversight, their effectiveness can be undermined by political influence. Despite these challenges, the parliamentary system does maintain some level of checks and balances through mechanisms such as question hour, no-confidence motions, and debates, which allow the opposition to hold the government accountable. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is often contingent on the strength and unity of the opposition and the willingness of the ruling party to engage in transparent governance.

*email: contactus@prepp.in